There has been a recurring argument (not mine, heaven forbid) both prior to and in the aftermath of the election that not voting for the dems would show them that they can’t keep running away to the right and still expect to win. It would teach them a lesson.

It baffles me that they think a) the Dems would actually learn the lesson, b) the alternative wouldn’t be that much worse and c) the alternative that quite explicitly aimed to abolish democracy entirely would willingly afford the dems a chance to learn that lesson. If they can’t eliminate democracy itself, they’ll try to neuter and bias it as heavily as possible until they’ve got the same kind of pseudo-democratic one-party fuckery that you see in other countries like… China, North Korea, Russia, Belarus…

Huh, that’s funny, seems like all the countries whose boots they’re so eager to lick. I’m sure that’s coincidence, right?

Actually, that’s a lie. I don’t believe it’s coincidence at all. I think it’s part of a deceitful strategy to undermine democracy through spreading willful ignorance and channeling voter frustration and disillusionment into frustration with democracy itself. Hell, there are even people claiming that a dictatorship is a necessity of revolution, that you can’t build a new and better system without placing someone in charge of building it - because that worked out so fucking well with the other communist revolutions, right?

Every single fucker who gargles dictator cock under the guise of “communism” and “leftism” is an authoritarian, a traitor against the people they feign class solidarity with. You don’t save democracy by not participating. You don’t hold politicians accountable by supporting their opponents.

And that’s being charitable and assuming they’re just misguided, not intentionally malicious foreign actors.